MURSUTHI Vs. DDC AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Khata Nos. 38Ka, 38Kha and 120 (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed property').

(3.) The facts of the case are that one Ram Din was the original tenure holder of the disputed property. Sheo Barat was the son of Ram Din. The aforesaid facts are admitted by the parties. The contention of the petitioner is that Chauthi i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 5 was the only son of Sheo Barat. On the other hand, the contention of respondent no. 2 had been that Chauthi and respondent no. 2 were the sons of Sheo Barat who was also known as Ameer. During the consolidation proceedings, Case Nos. 6979 and 6987 under Section 9A- (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') were registered in the court of Consolidation Officer on the issue whether Chauthi was the sole tenure holder of the disputed plots and the decision of the said issue depended on the answer to the question as to whether respondent no. 2 was also the son of Sheo Barat. It is admitted between the parties that Kabili was the wife of Sheo Barat and Kabili was the mother of both Chauthi and respondent no. 2. However, the contention of the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 before the consolidation authorities was that after the death of Sheo Barat, Kabili had started living with another person, named, Ameer and respondent no. 2 was born from the relationship between Kabili and Ameer and therefore was not the son of Sheo Barat. From a perusal of the records, it appears that before the consolidation authorities, respondent no. 2 had admitted that after the death of Sheo Barat, Kabili had started living with some other person but asserted that he i.e. respondent no. 2 was the son of Sheo Barat. In Case Nos. 6979 and 6987 registered before the Consolidation Officer, certain revenue records were filed by the petitioner in which Chauthi was recorded as the only son and heir of Sheo Barat while respondent no. 2 filed copies of the khatauni of 1359 Fasli relating to Khata No. 129 and Khatauni of 1362 Fasli relating to Khata No. 55 in which Chauthi and respondent no. 2 were recorded as co-tenure holders of certain plots being the sons and heirs of Sheo Barat. Before the Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 2 had also filed copies of the family registers which reflected that Chauthi and he belonged to the same family and respondent no. 2 was the son of Sheo Barat. Apart from the above, the petitioner had also filed the revenue records relating to 1356 and 1359 Fasli which showed that one Kali Charan was recorded as tenure holder of certain plots in the aforesaid revenue records along with one Ameer who was shown to be son of one Punarwasi. The aforesaid document was filed by the petitioner to controvert the allegation of respondent no. 2 that Sheo Barat and Ameer were the same person and to prove that Sheo Barat and Ameer were two different persons.